THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In times of war, Congress has no greater
obligation than funding our war fighters. And next week, the House will
begin debate on an emergency war spending bill.

The purpose of this legislation should be to give our troops on the
front lines the resources, funds, and equipment they need to fight our
enemies. Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this bill as an
opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous
withdrawal from Iraq, and spend billions on domestic projects that have
nothing to do with the war on terror.

Our troops urgently need Congress to approve emergency war funds. Over
the past several weeks, our Nation has begun pursuing a new strategy in
Iraq. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus, our troops have
launched a difficult and dangerous mission to help Iraqis secure their
capital. This plan is still in its early stages, yet we're already
seeing signs of progress. Iraqi and American troops have rounded up more
than 700 people affiliated with Shia extremists. They've also launched
aggressive operations against Sunni extremists. And they've uncovered
large caches of weapons that could have been used to kill our troops.
These are hopeful signs. As these operations unfold, they will help the
Iraqi government stabilize the country, rebuild the economy, and advance
the work of political reconciliation. Yet the bill Congress is
considering would undermine General Petraeus and the troops under his
command just as these critical security operations are getting under
way.

Archives

FAQ

First, the bill would impose arbitrary and restrictive conditions on the
use of war funds and require the withdrawal of forces by the end of this
year if these conditions are not met. These restrictions would handcuff
our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility they need to
adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground. And
these restrictions would substitute the mandates of Congress for the
considered judgment of our military commanders.

Even if every condition required by this bill was met, all American
forces -- except for very limited purposes -- would still be required to
withdraw next year, regardless of the situation in Iraq. The
consequences of imposing such an artificial timetable would be
disastrous.

Here is what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently told Congress:
Setting a fixed date to withdraw would "essentially tell [the enemy] how
long they would have to wait until we're gone." If American forces were
to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, the scale and scope
of attacks would increase and intensify. A contagion of violence could
spill out across the entire country, and in time, this violence would
engulf the region. The enemy would emerge from the chaos emboldened with
new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater
determination to harm America. Such an outcome would be a nightmare for
our country.

Second, the bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if
Iraqi leaders did not meet rigid conditions set by Congress. This makes
no sense. Members of Congress have often said that the Iraqis must step
forward and take more responsibility for their own security -- and I
agree. Yet Members of Congress can't have it both ways: They can't say
that the Iraqis must do more and then take away the funds that will help
them do so. Iraq is a young democracy that is fighting for its survival
in a region that is vital to American security. To cut off support for
their security forces at this critical moment would put our own security
at risk.

Third, the bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that
is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the House bill would
provide $74 million for peanut storage, $48 million for the Farm Service
Agency, and $35 million for NASA. These programs do not belong in an
emergency war spending bill. Congress must not allow debate on domestic
spending to delay funds for our troops on the front lines. And Members
should not use funding our troops as leverage to pass special interest
spending for their districts.

We are a Nation at war, and the heaviest responsibilities fall to our
troops in the field. Yet we in Washington have responsibilities, as
well. General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote
in opposition, and he and his troops need these resources to succeed in
their mission. Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I
believe them. Now they have a chance to show that support in deed, as
well as in word. Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our
troops, without strings and without delay. If they send me a bill that
does otherwise, I will veto it.